Zohar wrote:But please stop explaining how I'm supposed to feel while playing, and how my experiences and expectations are somehow wrong.

I'm not denying the possibility that you get trapped in the game.

What I'm trying to say, is that the game Catan is designed such that its virtually impossible for a single opponent to trap you. To be trapped, you need to have multiple players trying to screw you over. It has happened to me before (after I won two games in a row, the 3rd time, everyone "ganged up on me" to box me in to ensure that I lost). So yes, I've been boxed in before, but only by multiple coordinated players. At that point, I think I can blame my friends instead of blaming the game however.

That's part of what makes Catan a good game. Its difficult to be a jerk and actually win. As stated before, "boxing in" opponents nets you absolutely zero points. The game is cooperative in most cases. Its far more efficient to trade (even 3-to-1) than to fight in Catan. So as long as everyone is "playing to win", the games usually end up being pleasant. There are very few opportunities for combat or conflict.

Of course, no board game is immune to assholes in your social circle. Any board game can be ruined by an explicit jerk. But more often than not... in "well designed" board games... being a pleasant player is synonymous with winning. IE: in Catan, building cities away from others nets you more points than boxing enemies in. Trading 3-to-1 with players is a more efficient path to victory than "hogging all the resources". Etc. etc.

Zohar wrote:Well I guess that the impossible has happened to me multiple times, and I'm wrong in disliking Catan.

I find it highly unlikely that you've got trapped by a single opponent. If multiple opponents trapped you, then I think its possible.

But again, the board is a hex-grid with 6-areas to run away to at any given time, and you're guaranteed to have two cities in the beginning of the game. (if placed far apart, you have 12-areas to run away. And even if placed next to each other, you have something like 9-areas to run away to). I'm sorry, but you weren't trapped by a single opponent. It just isn't happening.

I mapped out the most degenerate case I could think of: two cities placed next to each other at the beginning of the game in the corner of the board. But even in this degenerate case, its very difficult for me to see how a player would gain such an advantage to trap you in before you gained the two-roads needed to break out.

I'm not saying your experience is necessarily wrong: which is the fact that you got trapped in the game. I can see how you get trapped if multiple players were mean to you at the same time. Or maybe (what's more likely), there were spots that you didn't like or didn't feel like building towards. Maybe "behind" you was the desert tile and it felt inefficient. So maybe your definition of "trapped" is different than mine.

But in terms of "trapped classic", where a player literally cannot do anything for the whole game? It just doesn't happen in Catan. The number of places to run away to is just too numerous for that to happen.

Zohar wrote:Well I guess that the impossible has happened to me multiple times, and I'm wrong in disliking Catan.

Dislike it all you want, you explicitly said you thought it was a "pretty bad game" in your first post on the matter and it appears you made that judgement based on things that are going to be a problem in any game if people are ganging up on another. I mean if everyone decides to attack all your planets in Twilight Imperium, despite you being in a terrible position and someone else about to take Mecatol Rex, well that's not the game's fault. That's players making bad decisions.

That said, Catan certainly can have problem. Dice rollings games can be inherently problematic since the number of rolls in a game is still relatively small. It means you can get very streaky games and very odd number distributions on rolls which can throw things off. A game where no 6s are rolled can really screw someone if their primary resource they placed for was on a 6. Similarly a spectacular string of a particular number can result in someone getting an insurmountable lead. But that's the type of randomness you get with dice games. It's bad if you're playing single games but over the long term the numbers do tend to work out towards what they statistically should be.

Chen wrote:That said, Catan certainly can have problem. Dice rollings games can be inherently problematic since the number of rolls in a game is still relatively small. It means you can get very streaky games and very odd number distributions on rolls which can throw things off. A game where no 6s are rolled can really screw someone if their primary resource they placed for was on a 6. Similarly a spectacular string of a particular number can result in someone getting an insurmountable lead. But that's the type of randomness you get with dice games. It's bad if you're playing single games but over the long term the numbers do tend to work out towards what they statistically should be.

This is far closer to my problem with Catan actually, which is why I prefer less-random games like Dominion.

But "getting boxed in" isn't the problem (at least, not without "help" from multiple jackasses, which would be a problem in any game honestly). Dumb-ass rolls like "11" being rolled more often than "6" throughout a game have caused more problems in my experience, especially if it happens early on. Catan has a "snowball" problem: if you get just one settlement or city before everyone else, you get a major advantage in production... and often can snowball your way to victory. Even just by brute-forcing a 4-to-1 trade with the bank.

KnightExemplar wrote:My standing challenge of "draw out what you mean" would help resolve this issue mind you. There might be a concept I'm not understanding due to phrasing or whatever.

There's no need, I've been convinced! You managed to convert me! You are the magnificent legislator of fun, and I should have deferred to your boardgamey wisdom. I humbly apologize for having doubted you.

Chen wrote:Dislike it all you want, you explicitly said you thought it was a "pretty bad game" in your first post on the matter and it appears you made that judgement based on things that are going to be a problem in any game if people are ganging up on another.

Thank you for explaining how games work! That is very helpful! Perhaps you should be named vice-legislator of fun! I'm sure I'll have much more fun in the future!

Zohar: I've already stated that I can see how you can get trapped under a large number of scenarios (at least, for some expanded definition of "trapped"). What I'm trying to do is imagine your situation unfolding. I've played a lot of Catan, so yes, I am confident in how games can unfold.

I've laid out scenarios where getting "trapped" is likely, and am asking you to explain further. No need to be defensive about this.

----------

In any case, I'm fine to drop the subject at this point and resume discussion of "Splendor", which is an excellent game with a lot less "luck-based bullshit" that happens in Catan. Splendor still has a luck-element (it burns so much when you buy a 5-cost card on the bottom row... only to reveal an identical 3-cost card from the top of the deck. So the next player gets a +2 coin advantage against you). But Splendor's luck element is far more manageable.

I am not able to recall exact details about games I didn't enjoy that happened several years ago, even if I was interested in convincing you further that what you say is impossible is, in fact, possible. And I already mentioned the point isn't the minute details and possible board configurations in Catan, it is an example of a broader type of mechanic I dislike. I've already mentioned two other examples of similar mechanics I dislike for similar reasons (giving mandatory quests in Lords of Waterdeep and reserving a coveted card in Splendor) and yet you are so astounded by the anecdote I told about Catan that you can't get over this point and say "Oh, yeah I guess that might happen. I still like the game but it's cool if you enjoy other stuff". And so I'm not trying to be defensive, I simply see no reason to expend more brain power in trying to agree that sometimes people like different things in games. Instead, I will amuse myself.

Because it can't. Sorry to burst your bubble, but I've played a lot of Catan and am confident to chime in on this. You'd have to purposefully set yourself in a corner and have multiple players fucking with you before your 6 paths of escape on your two different starting cities were closed off. Maybe one city gets blocked off, but that's why you have a 2nd placement at the start of the game. And again, there are zero points awarded for blocking opponents. So the point-system doesn't even grant any benefits to such jackass-level tactics. (Indeed, the optimal play is to build away from opponents, so that your settlements have more room for expansion. Building towards opponents weakens not only the opponent... but also yourself)

I've played like 3 games of Splendor and have never played the other game. I cannot comment on those games because I don't have the experience or knowledge to chime in. Sorry for focusing the discussion on a subject I intimately know about and have large experience with.

KnightExemplar wrote:Because it can't. Sorry to burst your bubble, /quote]Oh no! I've been foiled again! Ah, I knew I shouldn't have tried to trick you! You are so much smarter and more knowledgeable than me, oh splendid play mediator!

Probably not in general. But I'm confident to say that I'm a more experienced player of Catan than you are. And my experience contradicts your experience.

Again, I don't even want to contradict your experience or facts. I've laid out a multiple examples of how and where a "trapped" scenario can unfold throughout this discussion. But I don't think its going to happen in the original way you described it.

Oh, you misunderstand, marvelous luck champion, I completely agree that your experience vastly surpasses mine, and anything I say must be of the most miniscule significance! However, I appreciate you emphasizing the vast abyss that separates me from a true master. It is good to know my place.

Why of course you are, just like at least half of my roommates! (they claim the game is too much luck-based; which is true, but I don't want to continuously lose to someone who just knows the strategies for a game )Well, perhaps I do dislike the base game a bit. I've played more Cities & Knights and Cheops in which you're really unlikely to get blocked.The game my parents have seems to be rigged, though, because in a lot of games the 9 is thrown more often than 6, 7 and 8. And most often I'm not adjacent to a 9.

Flumble wrote:Well, perhaps I do dislike the base game a bit. I've played more Cities & Knights and Cheops in which you're really unlikely to get blocked.The game my parents have seems to be rigged, though, because in a lot of games the 9 is thrown more often than 6, 7 and 8. And most often I'm not adjacent to a 9.

BTW: one of my friends actually threw all the dice into water to check their balance. I shit you not, the dice are the #1 issue in Catan. Lots of people rage-hard against those dice...

I mean, Catan is basically a game built on top of a "Craps" table. So... yeah, its going to be luck based. But still, you'd think that the dice would roll more "evenly" than they do in reality...

I'm guessing Zohar got trapped in Catan by placing his settlements either too close together or far apart, then multiple people build roads to "stake their claim" on some territory. I've played Catan a fair bit, and cutting someone off is often the right play. It's not a concerted effort to do so, but if Opponent 1 builds roads to hem in Opponent 2, it's often in my best interest to hem in Opponent 2 as well, just because if I don't, they'll certainly be coming my way (since they can't go in the direction of Opponent 1, they'll have to come towards me). Yes, they're not completely out of the game; they can still build along the coastline, like you said, or expand around their other settlement, but I have been in multiple games where this happened to both of someone's settlements within the first few turns. No amount of reasonably uneven trading is going to win them that game, no matter how much they develop the coast. In the interest of reaching the game's goal (to have fun), one might decide to put themselves a little further from the object of the game (to win) in favour of the table's own good. I suspect you already understood that, KnightExemplar, but now you have the specifics you asked for.

I'm guessing Zohar got trapped in Catan by placing his settlements either too close together or far apart, then multiple people build roads to "stake their claim" on some territory. I've played Catan a fair bit, and cutting someone off is often the right play. It's not a concerted effort to do so, but if Opponent 1 builds roads to hem in Opponent 2, it's often in my best interest to hem in Opponent 2 as well, just because if I don't, they'll certainly be coming my way (since they can't go in the direction of Opponent 1, they'll have to come towards me). Yes, they're not completely out of the game; they can still build along the coastline, like you said, or expand around their other settlement, but I have been in multiple games where this happened to both of someone's settlements within the first few turns. No amount of reasonably uneven trading is going to win them that game, no matter how much they develop the coast. In the interest of reaching the game's goal (to have fun), one might decide to put themselves a little further from the object of the game (to win) in favour of the table's own good. I suspect you already understood that, KnightExemplar, but now you have the specifics you asked for.

The most consistent path to victory is: 4-settlements, upgrade to cities (8-points), then get a +2 bonus, either from knights or longest-road. You start with two settlements, so you only really need to have the space for two more. Sometimes you can make due with even 3-settlements (6-point cities) and two of the +2 bonuses.

Building around the coast usually isn't as terrible as you make it seem, because you get access to 1:3 or 1:2 trading posts, which give you the leverage to seek better deals from your opponents (If you get the 1:3 port, all of your trades with humans will be 2-to-1 or better). I've certainly won with a coastal strategy before, so I definitely don't consider that "hemmed in".

But most importantly, because of the outside-to-inside distribution strategy... coastal territories typically have better rolls. C and E have 6 and 8, and are therefore guaranteed to be on the coastline. Bad rolls, like Q and R (3 / 11) are placed in the middle of the board, where there is more room to expand. So the game balances it out really. Expansion along a coast is 100% a legitimate strategy.

Take the C/D hex for example, it will be 6 and 3 as your two rolls, or 7 stars, probably with a port city. You're not too far behind someone who built in the center (With PQR: 6/3/11 for 9 stars). In fact, the port city is probably more helpful than banking on an 11-roll (except when luck is... lucky)

KnightExemplar wrote:But most importantly, because of the outside-to-inside distribution strategy... coastal territories typically have better rolls. C and E have 6 and 8, and are therefore guaranteed to be on the coastline. Bad rolls, like Q and R (3 / 11) are placed in the middle of the board, where there is more room to expand. So the game balances it out really. Expansion along a coast is 100% a legitimate strategy.

Take the C/D hex for example, it will be 6 and 3 as your two rolls, or 7 stars, probably with a port city. You're not too far behind someone who built in the center (With PQR: 6/3/11 for 9 stars). In fact, the port city is probably more helpful than banking on an 11-roll (except when luck is... lucky)

People actually lay down the numbers according to the letters on the back? The way I've mostly played it was randomly lay down the numbers and (pseudo-randomly) swap some if there's an obvious advantage at a certain point (like 3 red numbers next to each other, or two same numbers next to each other).Do you also place the ports exactly the same as in the manual?

KnightExemplar wrote:But most importantly, because of the outside-to-inside distribution strategy... coastal territories typically have better rolls. C and E have 6 and 8, and are therefore guaranteed to be on the coastline. Bad rolls, like Q and R (3 / 11) are placed in the middle of the board, where there is more room to expand. So the game balances it out really. Expansion along a coast is 100% a legitimate strategy.

Take the C/D hex for example, it will be 6 and 3 as your two rolls, or 7 stars, probably with a port city. You're not too far behind someone who built in the center (With PQR: 6/3/11 for 9 stars). In fact, the port city is probably more helpful than banking on an 11-roll (except when luck is... lucky)

People actually lay down the numbers according to the letters on the back?

Page 13 of Rulebook wrote: Place 1 token on each land hex. Start at a corner of the island. Place the number tokens on the terrain hexes in alphabetical order, proceeding counter-clockwise towards the center. Skip the desert

A quick look at the tiles demonstrates that THREE of the 6/8 tiles are to be placed along the coastline. C, E, and K are always on the coast as per the standard rules. This ensures that coastal players have a good shot.

There are rules for fully random tiles, but even in that case, red tiles are never supposed to be next to each other.

Also on Page 13 wrote: Alternatively, you can use a fully random set-up. [snip] ... the tokens with the red numbers (6 or 8) must not be next to each other. You may have to swap tokens to ensure that no red numbers are on adjacent hexes

In this case, I guess there's no guarantee that the good tiles (like C or E) will be along the coast. But since the red tiles (6 or 8) are the best tiles in the game, and that there are four of them... and all four must be placed "far away" from each other... if you're following those rules, then you'll still get multiple "high-quality" tiles along the coast.

Do you also place the ports exactly the same as in the manual?

Those are randomized in my games.

Also what are these stars you speak of?

The "C" tile, which is associated with the number 6, has 5-stars on it. This represents the 5/36 chance of 6 being rolled. (A 1/5, a 2/4, 3/3, 4/2, and 5/1). By counting the stars, you can estimate the probability of grabbing resources.

Well... looks like I herp-derped. They're dots, not stars. But the point remains: you can calculate the probability of getting a resource per dice roll by simply counting dots and then dividing the total number by 36.

So if you're on a tile with 6 and 3 (aka: the C and D tiles), you have access to 7 dots, and have a 7/36 chance of getting a resource per turn.

Getting hemmed in is a real thing that can really happen in real Catan games, even without multiple jackasses purposely fucking with you, as evidenced by the number of "how to avoid being hemmed in" threads a quick Google provided.

Sure, it might not happen at Grandmaster-level competition where everyone plays as close to optimally as possible, but a few suboptimal choices early in the game plus a bit of bad luck with rolls could definitely hurt someone's ability to gather resources enough that they lose the benefit of most of their escape paths before they get a chance to build in that direction.

It's frankly bizarre to me to see KnightExemplar saying flat-out that it can't happen when it clearly demonstrably does happen with enough frequency that people ask or complain about it and get lots of responses with commiseration and/or advice.

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

KnightExemplar wrote:I mean, its part of the rules. So... I'd expect it to be.

Huh. I never actually knew what those letters on the number tiles meant. That... could solve some problems. I don't own the game, but I've played Catan many times with many people, and I guess no one ever reads the Almanac because we did it pseudo-random every time.

Though I guess it makes sense that only the hardcore will ever read something called an "almanac". "Extra info" or something might work better. Something to keep in mind for my own game design.

KnightExemplar wrote:The "C" tile, which is associated with the number 6, has 5-stars on it. This represents the 5/36 chance of 6 being rolled. (A 1/5, a 2/4, 3/3, 4/2, and 5/1). By counting the stars, you can estimate the probability of grabbing resources.

Ah, they've added probability dots to the chips in later/earlier/other editions. The versions I played only had numbers on the front (with the font size signifying the probability) and letters on the back. I would say that's actually clearer (less clutter), but it looked a bit silly.

KnightExemplar, yes, it is almost impossible for a single person to block you in. But it is far easier for two or more uncoordinated people to severely restrict your expansion. Not everyone plays optimally (I'd say it is rare for people to do so), so all sorts of things happen.

Anyway, onto brighter news.

Cancon is on in 2 days! Spending some holiday time in Canberra for some awesome board game fun. Not sure what games to look out for this year though. Hopefully I'll get a go at one of the longer games, like Through the Ages.

Gopher of Pern wrote:KnightExemplar, yes, it is almost impossible for a single person to block you in. But it is far easier for two or more uncoordinated people to severely restrict your expansion. Not everyone plays optimally (I'd say it is rare for people to do so), so all sorts of things happen.

Anyway, onto brighter news.

Cancon is on in 2 days! Spending some holiday time in Canberra for some awesome board game fun. Not sure what games to look out for this year though. Hopefully I'll get a go at one of the longer games, like Through the Ages.

Aw, I'm not sure if I'll be going to any of CanCon. We're trying to keep away from temptation so we can afford a few things later in the year. However, I hope you have fun!

Played my first game of New Angeles yesterday. Possibly my last game as well? It wasn't bad at all, just very long, and it's hard to do long games like that. It took us about 4 hours, with instructions. We were all new players, but the guy who bought the game read the manual multiple times ahead of time so that went well.

It's a Fantasy Flight game, and if you've played Battlestar Galactica, then it's very similar. It's semi-co op. We all play CEOs in a corrupt city, and we need to manage the minimum demands by the population, various resistance movements, riots, and outages, all while trying to gather power ourselves.

The main mechanic uses deal-making - the first player suggests a card whose action will happen (increase production, clear outages, etc.), everyone else has a chance to counter-offer, then everyone (but the two players involved in the offer) gets to vote on which happens. Whoever wins the offer gets to choose how to implement it, and they get a bonus "asset" which can provide special abilities or bonuses ("at the end of your turn decrease a resource by one to get more victory points", "force a player to discard 3 cards or draw 3 cards, then give them this asset"...).

Similar to a loyalty deck in BSG, in this game you create a deck filled with a card for each player, and a "federalist" card. Then these cards are dealt randomly and secretly to each player. Each player's victory condition is:1. If they get the Federalist card, they want to raise the threat level high enough (if they manage to, everyone else loses).2. If they get someone else's card, they just need to have more victory points ("capital") than that other person.3. If they get their own card, they need to arrive to 1st or 2nd place in victory points.

It makes for an interesting dynamic. Unlike Galactica, it seems like there are fewer actions for the Federalist (if they exist) to screw other people over, and they don't have any special powers if they're revealed - I think that's the main drawback of the game. Also, the Federalist is acting alone. This could be offset by pushing other players against each other, but that didn't happen too much in our game.

I played another game of Mottainai yesterday, a game I supported on kickstarter. It is pretty challenging to explain to new players... And I'm not sure I'll be playing it that often. I find a lot of the actions you do too offensive for my tastes. I know I've mentioned this before (and recently), but I'd rather not be forced to attack other players just because I have to do that when trying to do something different (i.e. "I'm just trying to build this thing but it tells me when I build it I must steal a card from opponents!")

Do you have anything else to go on? Number of players? Are you controlling armies or a personal character?

Each person controlled 3-4 characters. It was strictly my characters vs his characters. It had cardboard pieces to show cone effects for weapons. I can't remember if all the characters had wings or not but I definitely remember flight being a movement option.

Do you recall if it was pre-set teams and everything in one box sort of thing, or was it a build your team but only from characters in the box... or was it a Warhammer/Battletech sort of thing where the figures didn't come in a box, you bought them individually?

I know you may not recall this, but if you do it'd help.

heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.

heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

Bought Pandemic: On the Brink expansion a few weeks ago, and it is a big improvement on the base game (which was already pretty great!). I didn't realize before I bought it that it's kind of three expansions in one. Mix and match among the new purple disease, virulent strain epidemics, or the addition of a hidden bioterrorist. Haven't tried the bioterrorist yet, but the purple disease in particular is a fantastic addition to the game, adding a lot of extra strategy to the game while helping to keep the step-by-step nature of some games out of there. Bunch of new roles and new special cards make the game a lot better as well. I'd recommend it to anyone who's already a fan of the base game, but wants to upgrade their experience. Most of this feels like it should have just been there all along.

SDK wrote:Bought Pandemic: On the Brink expansion a few weeks ago, and it is a big improvement on the base game .

I bought it a couple of years ago but I haven't gotten around to playing it. Mostly because I noticed the cards from my expansion were slightly larger than those from my base game. I also haven't played regular pandemic in a while since I played about 14 sessions of pandemic legacy last year.

My base game is old, with big wooden disease cubes, big wooden figures, different pictures on the card backs, and outdated text on the original five role cards (and missing the two extra roles that come with the base game these days). Point is, I had to sleeve everything when I bought it, and the sticker I put on the board for the purple cure looks pretty out of place, but it's all good.